Pages

Monday, February 6, 2012

Details of A Non-Existing Warrant Tells All

My previous post
titled "A Non-Existing Warrant Tells All" delved into the question of
what Judge Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams knew, and are now attempting
to conceal by presiding on a civil action that would have the defendants answer
issues revealing a concerted effort to deny Earl Hickson and Markland Grant
equal protection of the laws and meaningful access to the courts as afforded by
the Constitution of the United States of America.

Let's take a closer
look at one of the six paragraphs of averment [16], as set forth within the
plaintiff's "28 U.S.C.A. § 1746 Declaration of Bias or Prejudice and
Motion for Recusal of U.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M.
Williams," and it's supporting "Brief."

The first question
asked of Judge Hillman was, "Judge Hillman did you accept Kathleen Bartus’
submissions to the court?" If I had
my own daytime T.V. show, this would be the segment where I reach for the envelope,
and announce, "When it comes to accepting the submissions of Kathleen
Bartus, the evidence says, Judge Noel L. Hillman, you are the father."

Judge Noel L.
Hillman, fathered this "(JSHIT) progeny" by giving birth to this fact
within his submission to the world, in the form of his Sept. 27, 2010
Opinion.Said opinion is now held out to
the world asHickson v. Marina
Associates, et al., 743 F.Supp.2d 362. The proofs that this Judge relied upon
the submissions of Deputy Attorney General for the State of New Jersey,
Kathleen Bartus are as follows:

@ 366 to 367 the judge says:
"Soon thereafter, Kosko informed Hickson that there was a
warrant for his arrest for violation of
probation. Hickson denied that he was ever on probation or that
a 367*367 valid warrant was issued for his arrest." [Click link and scroll to last sentence of page 366, of Hickson v Marina Associates, et al.]

The Proofs Support- (a) On 3/10/2008 Earl Hickson took a photo of the New Jersey
Promis/Gavel, showing that I was charged
with a violation of probation on 5/15/2008, jailed on the same date and
not discharged until 5/25/2008. (b) The same NJ Promis/Gavel shows that I was arrested
and charged by "NJ STATE POLICE." (C) On 7/17/2009 I took a photo of the report sent to me by
Kathleen Bartus that stated in box #33 that I was charged with "bail jumping, 2C:29-7"
contrary to the NJ Promis/Gavel charge of VOP 2C: 45-3. [Scroll to pg 2
after clicking] (d) On 3/19/2003 Earl Hickson initialed the document
stating at item #13 that: "Time Served, No Probation... (e)The
so-called warrant manufactured by Kathleen Bartus, and or someone under
her direction has not been signed by Mark Kosko, nor does the name of the
judge match that given in Kosko's report that Noel L. Hillman say he could
rely on in good faith.

@ 371 the judge says:
"According to his investigation report, Kosko observed video
footage depicting Hickson's removal of a voucher from the slot
machine at issue and, thereafter, a conversation between Hickson and
Fedaczynsky."

@ 371 the judge further
states: "Kosko had learned and reasonably relied on the belief
that Hickson had an outstanding warrant.
Although Hickson challenges the validity of the warrant, Kosko
was entitled to rely on it in good faith. See Berg v. County of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261, 273 (3d
Cir.2000) ("[W]e
have generally extended immunity to an officer who makes an arrest based
on an objectively reasonable belief that there is a valid
warrant.")"

Judge Noel L. Hillman hangs
himself out to dry within his second to last sentence on page 371 where he
say's: "Hickson does not raise a genuine issue of material fact
on any of these points, including the reasonableness of Kosko's reliance
on the warrant."

Judge Noel L. Hillman is a
Liar and unfit to sit on the bench as the following contradicts his
statement. I, Earl Hickson raised the following genuine issues of material
fact that this liar ignored and now attempts to continue concealing as
follows:

Within the prevailing
"Third Amended Complaint" averments, #44, 46, 49,133, 134, 178
and #189 make specific reference to the issue of the warrant.

As established within 4(c) of
"Aiding and Abetting From the Bench (part II)" Judge Noel L. Hillman has acknowledged by his own
hand that I filed a "Renewed/Supplemental Motion For Summary
Judgment. That document also specifically argues the issue of the warrant
at averments, #44, 46, 49, 133, 177, and #188.

The above at (b) was
supported by a "Brief" wherein I stated at "Point 2
(F)" the following:

"I was raised to respect my elders and to always
give a woman respect but I am taken aback by the presentation of Kathleen
Bartus when she mailed me an unsigned copy of a purported warrant for my arrest
that supposedly served as the basis for Mark Kosko taking me to the Atlantic
County Justice Facility, where I was held against my will for 11 days as the
cohorts sorted out their plan. Any
warrant that has been executed on May 15, 2006 should have the executing
Officer’s signature in the area validating the warrants return to the court.

Mark Kosko stated within his report that Judge Conner
issued the warrant of November 22, 2003, (See Exhibit X box 37), yet the
presentation of March 2010 say that it was issued by Judge Garofolo. (See Photo of Warrant I and Photo of Warrant
II)." [Click this link to see accurate copies of the cited exhibits attached as Details of A Non-Existing Warrant]

Now that you have
both sides of the story and not just those of a Judge failing to uphold the
Constitution of the United States by denying those within the jurisdiction of a
United States District Court the equal protection of the laws and meaningful
access to his court, do you agree that the clock is ticking for these judges to
remove themselves from this matter?

With 14 days left in
the "Count Down to a Recusal" why not tell a friend or two about this
site?